Obama and Clinton courted Russia AND Russia, so why is it bad for Trump to want to improve relations with Moscow?

(NationalSentinel) President Donald J. Trump, already the victim of a fake news narrative that “Russia hacked the election” in his favor, is about to get even more heat from the usual globalist suspects over comments he made to Fox News‘ Bill O’Reilly ahead of today’s Super Bowl.

In an interview set to air at 4:oo p.m. EST, Trump tells O’Reilly he has “respect” for Russian President Vladimir Putin, even though he’s a “killer.”

In the interview, Bill O’Reilly asked if Trump respects Russian President Vladimir Putin, to which the he replied, “I do respect him. Well, I respect a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean I’ll get along with them.”

After O’Reilly asks why, Trump answers: “He is the leader of his country. I say it’s better to get along with Russia than not, and if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS – which is a major fight – and the Islamic terrorism all over the world, that’s a good thing. Will I get along with him? I have no idea.”

Trump shrugged the comment off, saying: “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country is so innocent?”

In late January Trump and Putin held their first phone call, one in which both sides called productive.

“Over the past years, the lack of mutual respect became the main reason for the deterioration of relations,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov added. Another important thing is that Washington is prepared for dialogue, the spokesman noted.

Lost in the coming firestorm of faux disbelief and general unhinged behavior by the globalists and the Alt-Left foreign policy “experts” is the fact that the Obama regime, led first by Hillary Clinton then by John Kerry, first tried to improve relations not only with Russia (but bungled it) but also Iran, the latter of which has been and remains an avowed enemy of the United States.

Trump, by comparison, wants to improve relations with a global power while laying down the law to a junior member of world nations led by men who still haven’t figured out the U.S. is not going to be punked anymore in the Middle East.

Who can seriously argue with this approach – other than the military-industrialists in Congress who never saw a war they didn’t like?